A Panel Discussion
of People, Politics and Subsistence in
Alaska

Summary by Rosita
Worl

During a meeting on July 26,
the Harriman Scholars and staff discussed the need to
highlight some of the pressing issues in Alaska. Subsistence
was selected as a topic that warranted discussion with the
participants of the Expedition. A subcommittee was
established to frame and discuss the issue. The following
summarizes the panel presentation that was moderated by Mary
Dunn.

Introduction

Alaska Native People today
maintain that subsistence hunting and fishing are essential
for their physical and cultural survival. Prior to the
immigration of a Euro-American population to Alaska, its
indigenous population lived solely on the resources gathered
from the land. Their dependence on the land diminished
through various assimilationist efforts by the United States
government, missionaries and educators to change the
lifestyle of Alaska Natives to resemble that of the larger,
dominant society.

In the present day period, the
economy of rural communities remains dependent on the
harvest of fish and wildlife as well as wage employment.
Such economies are described as "dual" or "mixed" economies.
No community in Alaska is strictly dependent on subsistence,
and most communities lack a developed capital economy to
meet the needs of its residents. Subsistence resources are
harvested for direct consumption by the rural populations
rather than for sale in the commercial market.

During the last ten years,
subsistence has become a volatile political and
emotionally-charged issue in Alaska. It has become a focal
point in the election of both state and federal officials.
It has led to innumerable and ongoing cases in both federal
and state courts. Subsistence has further created tensions
among Alaskans that have been characterized as a Rural/Urban
Divide.

The Social, Cultural and
Economic Significance of Subsistence

Subsistence as it is practiced
among the indigenous populations of Alaska is conducted as a
socioeconomic system. It is practiced as a group enterprise
rather than the pursuit of a single individual. In Alaska
Native communities, individuals organize themselves into
kin-based units to harvest, preserve, and distribute
subsistence resources. Members of the group also work in
wage jobs in order to earn cash to purchase fuel, equipment
and clothing necessary to conduct the subsistence
pursuit.

The traditional cultural values
of each indigenous group dictate the relationship of the
hunters and fishers to their land and wildlife. Natives
conceive of animals as having spirits. They are required to
conduct themselves according to the rules transmitted
through the generations in order to be successful in their
quest. Their cultural values also shape their sharing or
distribution patterns. For example, a young hunter is
required to share his first take with community members.
Native foods also play a central role in many of the
traditional ceremonies and rites.

Subsistence resources are
vitally important in rural communities as a major food
source. They are the preferred foods of Elders. Studies by
the State of Alaska have verified the economic importance of
subsistence foods within rural communities. The by-products
of harvested wildlife are utilized for clothing and also in
the production of arts and crafts that are sold to
supplement one's income.

The Legal and Political
Highlights of the Subsistence Issue in Alaska

Alaska State
Constitution
States that fish and wildlife in their natural state are
reserved for the common use of the people.

Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA)Congress extinguishes aboriginal hunting and
fishing rights, but directs the Secretary of Interior and
State of Alaska to protect Native subsistence
rights.

Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA)Congress acts to protect rural subsistence
fishing and hunting on all federal lands and reserved
waters in Alaska. Congress extends the right to manage
subsistence on all Alaskan lands and waters to the State
of Alaska if it enacts a state law giving rural residents
subsistence priority.

McDowell v. State of
Alaska 1989The Alaska State Supreme Court strikes down the
state's statute establishing a rural subsistence priority
as a violation of the Alaska Constitution. ANILCA
requires the federal government to assume management of
subsistence on federal lands and waters.

Constitutional
Amendment EffortsThe anti-subsistence legislators and interest
groups prevail in five special and four regulars sessions
in preventing a constitutional amendment that complies
with ANILCA to be placed before the voters despite the
continuing polls that demonstrate public support for the
subsistence priority.

Federal ManagementThe federal government assumes management of
subsistence on federal lands because of the state's
non-compliance with ANILCA's subsistence
priority.

Katie John, et. al. v.
United StatesIn 1994 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules in
favor of Katie John, an Athabaskan Elder, and extends
federal subsistence protections on all inland navigable
waters reserved to the United States. Fishing provides
59% of the rural subsistence diet. Congress postpones the
implementation of federal protections on inland waters
for four years. The Governor of Alaska is now deciding
whether he should appeal the Court's original decision to
the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Issues Surrounding
Subsistence

State's Rights by
David PolicanskyThe State of Alaska together with
anti-subsistence interest groups assert that the state's
sovereignty is undermined with its inability to control
navigable waters and to manage the resources on federal,
Alaska and private lands.

The Equality Argument
by Rosita Worl
The anti-subsistence forces advance the ideological
argument of equality in arguing that ANILCA is based on a
racial preference citing and that "rural" is a mask for
"Native." They emphasize that the State constitution
calls for equal access to resources, but fail to note
that 97% to 98% of all fish and game harvested in Alaska
are taken by commercial and sports users. They oppose a
state constitutional amendment despite the fact that the
Legislature adopted a constitutional amendment which gave
3,000 permit holders access to 97% of all fisheries
harvested in Alaska.

The Interrelationship
Between Cultural Survival and Sovereignty by Allison
EberhardSovereignty or the right to govern entails both
territorial and cultural elements. Congress conveyed
lands to corporations rather than tribes under ANCSA.
Alaskan tribes, with the exception of one reservation,
lacks a land base. The cultural survival of Native people
is dependent on self determination and local control.

Co-Management Issues by
Kathy FrostAlaska Natives have historically been precluded
from meaningful participation in the management of
Alaska's resources. Models exist in Alaska that
demonstrate that management regimes are enhanced when
Natives play a direct role.

The Rural/Urban Divide
by Eric WohlforthThe conflicts and misunderstandings stemming from
the subsistence issue have torn the political, economic
and social fabric of Alaska. Competition for Alaska's
natural as well as the state's fiscal resources has
intensified the fissure between rural and urban Alaska
and has evolved into a racial conflict.

Conclusion

Alaska Natives have been
generally successful in maintaining the core elements of
their traditional cultures even after generations of
directed efforts by the dominant society to eradicate their
traditions. Subsistence has become the focal point of Native
Peoples' effort to retain their traditional ways. They also
continue to battle for their equal status in the larger
society. However, the following dismal statistics portray a
society and culture in jeopardy:

The annual death rate of
Native is five times higher than the national
average.

The suicide rate of Native
males 20 to 24 years old is more than 30 times the
national suicide rate for all age groups.

Natives are 16% of Alaska's
population, but represent 32% of the prison
population.

The Native substance abuse
mortality rate is 3.5 times the non-Native rate.

The Harriman Scholars and staff
recognized that the members of the Harriman Expedition
Retraced were awed to see the beauty and splendor of Alaska
and to hear reports on the efforts and the challenges to
protect Alaska's spectacular environment. They hosted the
above panel to ensure that members of the new millennium's
expedition could also learn about the stark issues
confronting all Alaskans.